PDA

View Full Version : Lockerbie Bomber Freed


MattHughesRocks
08-20-2009, 02:30 PM
Unbelievable :scared0015:



The families of the victims of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing decried the decision to release the Libyan terrorist convicted of killing 270 people, calling it one of the most "heartbreaking" injustices the world has ever seen.

Scotland's justice minister announced Thursday that Abdel Baset al-Megrahi — the sole person convicted in the December 1988 midair bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 — will be freed from a Scottish prison on compassionate grounds.

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said the former Libyan secret service agent, who was serving a life sentence, has terminal prostrate cancer and will be allowed to die in his homeland — despite protests from the U.S. and victims' families.

The private jet of Libya's leader, Muammar al-Qaddafi, was to collect al-Megrahi at Glasgow Airport after he was released.

"I cannot imagine having compassion for a mass murderer and terrorist who killed 270 people," said Susan Cohen of Cape May Court House, N.J., whose 20-year-old daughter, Theodora, died in the blast. "My daughter is dead. She is the one who deserves compassion."

"The Scots have folded very cowardly," she said. "The only sliver of justice we had was al-Megrahi — and now we don’t even have that."

Pan AM Flight 103 — which was carrying mostly Americans from London to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport — broke into pieces as it up flew over Scotland, on December 21, 1988. All 259 people on the airliner and 11 on the ground were killed when the jet crashed into the town of Lockerbie.

Among the victims were 35 students from Syracuse University, four from Colgate University and four from Brown University — all going home after a semester abroad in London. The average age of the passengers was 27.

Investigators ruled that a plastic explosive planted inside a Toshiba tape recorder punched a 20-inch-wide hole on the left side of the plane's fuselage.

On Jan. 31, 2001, Al-Megrahi was convicted by a panel of Scottish judges of 270 counts of murder for his part in the bombing. Another defendant — Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah — was acquitted.

"It's absolutely heartbreaking," Stan Maslowski of Haddonfield, N.J., said of Thursday's release of Al-Megrahi.

Maslowski's 30-year-old daughter, Diane, died in the bombing. "We've lived through this for 21 years. We’ve never had justice."

Maslowski's daughter, who was returning home for Christmas, was an assistant vice president and trader in the international fixed income department for Drexel Burnham Lambert, based in London. Maslowski and his wife, Norma, recounted speaking with their daughter hours before her flight, recalling that she told them about a job interview she had lined up as a financial commentator for NBC News.

"She was a loving daughter, with so much ahead of her," he said.

Prior to al-Megrahi's release, Cohen and Maslowski said that Qaddafi would feel vindicated if the terrorist were allowed to return to Libya — and that the U.S. and other countries would have done little to intervene because of oil interests in the Middle East.

Libya's relations with the West have changed since al-Megrahi's conviction. Qaddafi, who owns the largest oil reserve in Africa, reconciled with the U.S. and its allies following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He renounced terrorism and voluntarily dismantled Libya's secret program to develop nuclear weapons — earning commitments from Britain and the United States to work together to contain the threat of international terrorism.

President Obama shook hands with Qaddafi in July as they posed for pictures ahead of a G-8 summit dinner hosted by Italian President Giorgio Napolitano. The diplomatic gesture was aimed at reaching out to controversial world leaders in an effort to improve the United States' standing around the world, which Obama says was damaged by former President Bush's unilateral diplomacy.

"This is all about oil," Cohen said, adding that she believes Qaddafi, who lobbied for al-Megrahi's return, had a direct role in plotting the bombing.

She said al-Megrahi's release sets a frightening precedent.

"You can blow up an American plane and you can get away with it. What does that say about us?" she asked.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541003,00.html

Play The Man
08-20-2009, 05:11 PM
Thank you for posting this story. It is an absolute outrage! He served less than 12 days per victim murdered! This man didn't rob a 7-11 or pass false checks, he helped murder 270 people. He should have been hanged. He gets to spend the remaining months of his life with his family. His victims didn't even get a few seconds to say a prayer.:mad0233:

Crisco
08-20-2009, 07:38 PM
Thank you for posting this story. It is an absolute outrage! He served less than 12 days per victim murdered! This man didn't rob a 7-11 or pass false checks, he helped murder 270 people. He should have been hanged. He gets to spend the remaining months of his life with his family. His victims didn't even get a few seconds to say a prayer.:mad0233:


How anyone can feel that capital punishment is not justified in these cases is beyond me.

I think God has a special corner of hell for this scum bag.

Tyburn
08-20-2009, 07:41 PM
:unsure-1: Guys, half the people in Lockerbie do NOT believe that got the right man, and supported an appeal in order for further court time. The guy was convicted on virtually no evidence at all.

The truth is that this was probably not a one man job. I dont aggree they should let him go, but I do think that they should not be resting on the laurels.

They say the bomb was in a case, the clothes in the case were maltese, and the man from the maltese shop identified the Convict. Thats VERY Lose. Even if the Identification is correct and the man DID buy the clothes, there isnt any saying that he put them in the bag with the bomb.

...and the guy was not Convicted in Scotland. He was tried in a European Court, I think Belgium, a place that was nutral ground.

The Bigger evil is that I suspect he didnt do it, they locked up the wrong man, and the true murder has never been identified more then 20 years later :sad:

The Irony of this, is that the fight to get information on what actually happened has been slow, and British. Why America did not play an active role in the judiciary of this I dont know, especially when they have more of a chance of getting to the truth and the bottom of it then the British Government. I have to say, I am not convinced that this man was sole responsible for the Bomb at all. Which means the true culprits are still out there. Rather then complaining about the British Judiciary system, America should be actively involved in the process of bringing the true culprits to Justice.

You should be aware that there has been a sudden peak in Anti-Americanism sentiment after what some of your Government said about Our Health Service. There are a lot of politicians and people VERY upset that we have become some sort of dreadful example of what your country might become. If we are that bad, you need to consider why we are Allies at all, because the US Opposition to the Government KEEPS doing this.

We perhaps should talk about the Guy who hacked the NASA computers...this keeps coming in to the news because when this happens, its usually the British System that tries the Criminal. But America has an EXTREMELY one sided Extradition Aggrement set up in 2003, that demands its Allies turn over anyone on the slightest suspicion....the same is NOT Mutual. If we had suspicions of an American Citizen, you'd never see them extradited, when the Americans cant even be bothered to send a delegation of their troops to explain "Friendly Fire" incidents, to the parents of those British Soldiers killed by the Americans as part of a public enquiry with no fear of prosectuion.

You will forgive the feeling that this political friendship feels a bit one-sided. So if The U.S Complains about the Lockerbie Release, they better do more then simple slander of yet another British Insitution, perhaps they ought to launch an investigation of their own, and get to the bottom of the Truth...because its looking like Britian didnt do that in the first place.

Bonnie
08-20-2009, 09:19 PM
It's a shame they didn't get the rest of the b@$+@rds. They shouldn't let him go. I'm a very compassionate person, but this is wrong. The people who were blown up to pieces and scattered to the winds didn't get to go home and be buried by their families.

I feel the same way about the Manson killers who want to be let out. I don't care how good behavior they've shown or remorse. If California hadn't reversed the death penalty, they'd be dead now and the poor victims families wouldn't have to go to all those parole hearings repeatedly having to relive their loved ones gruesome deaths.

These terrorists are so bomb happy, I say strap a bomb to them and make them happier. :)

Play The Man
08-21-2009, 02:03 AM
I already had high blood pressure from this story when I came across a story describing the murderer's reception when he returned to Libya. He was greeted as a hero!:mad0233: :mad0233::mad0233: :mad0233: :mad0233: :mad0233: :mad0233: :mad0233: :mad0233: :mad0233: :mad0233:

Hero's welcome for Lockerbie bomber who slaughtered 270 as shabby deal sparks U.S. outrage

This was the moment the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing flew home to a hero's welcome.

As thousands cheered, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was escorted down the steps of his plane by Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, son of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Earlier this month, Saif Gaddafi met Lord Mandelson in Corfu, raising suspicions that a deal was being made to free 57-year-old Megrahi.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208001/Heros-welcome-Lockerbie-bomber-Megrahi-slaughtered-270.html#ixzz0OmH0xLLW


The decision was bitterly condemned by relatives of many of the 270 victims of the bombing and branded a mistake by President Barack Obama.

Mr Obama said his government had told Libya there must be no celebration for Megrahi.

But thousands of people wore T-shirts bearing Megrahi's picture and waved Libyan and Scottish flags as he arrived at a military airbase in Tripoli.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208001/Heros-welcome-Lockerbie-bomber-Megrahi-slaughtered-270.html#ixzz0OmHFKQQk

But in Britain and the U.S., TV coverage of Megrahi's flight brought new anguish to bereaved families.

There was angry contempt for Mr MacAskill, who spent 24 minutes delivering his decision.

He admitted Megrahi had shown no compassion to his victims, but added: 'That alone is not a reason for us to deny compassion to him and his family in his final days.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208001/Heros-welcome-Lockerbie-bomber-Megrahi-slaughtered-270.html#ixzz0OmHSqHNT

Anger has been compounded by claims that the release was brokered by Tony Blair during a meeting with Gaddafi two years ago - just hours before BP unveiled a £500million oil contract.

The former Prime Minister has been accused of a 'blood money' deal to protect Britain's oil interests.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208001/Heros-welcome-Lockerbie-bomber-Megrahi-slaughtered-270.html#ixzz0OmHnDhSJ


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/20/article-1208001-06207EB2000005DC-511_634x415.jpg

MattHughesRocks
08-21-2009, 02:15 AM
Wow, that's really incredible.Unbelievable really.

Bonnie
08-21-2009, 02:30 AM
This is what burns me up. We have our men and women in that part of the world getting blown up and coming back either in a coffin or messed up physically and mentally for the rest of their lives.

And these people are celebrating this terrorist as a hero. He was let go for "compassonate" reasons. Where is those people's, who are cheering him and calling him a hero, compassion for his victims. This is how they show their compassion by celebrating a killer.

This is why I ? is it worth it, us being over there and all the lives that have been lost (the dead and living), when you have people with the mentality that they have in that part of the world. Maybe Obama can go over there and do the whole "Change, Yes We Can!" mantra and see how that goes. :wink:

Crisco
08-21-2009, 04:21 AM
See my sig for my response.

mscomc
08-21-2009, 05:19 AM
This is what burns me up. We have our men and women in that part of the world getting blown up and coming back either in a coffin or messed up physically and mentally for the rest of their lives.

And these people are celebrating this terrorist as a hero. He was let go for "compassonate" reasons. Where is those people's, who are cheering him and calling him a hero, compassion for his victims. This is how they show their compassion by celebrating a killer.

This is why I ? is it worth it, us being over there and all the lives that have been lost (the dead and living), when you have people with the mentality that they have in that part of the world. Maybe Obama can go over there and do the whole "Change, Yes We Can!" mantra and see how that goes. :wink:



Well...this tragedy is a little before my time, as I am to young to remember this happening so please forgive me if I dont have some of the facts right. But I dont beleive the people of Libya are celebrating that a mass murderer, and a mass murderer of americans has been let free exactly.

I have been reading up on this topic as well as watching various new coverage from: ABC, NBC, CBS and fox. It appears as though many libyans are happy to see this man free beacause many feel he was used as a scapegoat for this terrible tragedy and that the evidence use to convict him was very loose (as dave mentioned above)..... Im not a lawyer, nor do I know the case details, but there is on thing I find a little unique about this guy. And that is as follows: Most terrorits when caught, brag about how they done something, some almost seem get off on bragging about how much pain they have caused and how they have fought "evil". Granted they may not shed info on the organization they work for or are involved in, but usually they are not afraid to admit what they have done.

The man who has been convicted has maintained his innocence since the day was accused, and even after his conviction and even as he laid in jail. Also, to follow up on what dave said, I have also seen some clips from the news (ABC mostly) of parents of the killed men and women even saying how they beleive this man is innocent and the real killer remains free.


Now at the same time, I dont beleive this guy should be just let out. He was convicted in a court, and given a trial....but as dave mentioned there was something about an appeal that I think may warrant further investigation.

Nevertheless, my sympathy and prayers remain with the familys and the ones who are dead.

Bonnie
08-21-2009, 05:41 AM
They were talking about this on CNN and one of the people were saying this was more "political". They said how Bush had welcomed Libya back into the fold because they have oil over there. It's begininning to sound like "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". :wink:

Why were all those people welcoming him back as a "hero" unless they feel or think he "accomplished" something say like the bombing.

Play The Man
08-21-2009, 07:06 AM
Well...this tragedy is a little before my time, as I am to young to remember this happening so please forgive me if I dont have some of the facts right. But I dont beleive the people of Libya are celebrating that a mass murderer, and a mass murderer of americans has been let free exactly.

I have been reading up on this topic as well as watching various new coverage from: ABC, NBC, CBS and fox. It appears as though many libyans are happy to see this man free beacause many feel he was used as a scapegoat for this terrible tragedy and that the evidence use to convict him was very loose (as dave mentioned above)..... Im not a lawyer, nor do I know the case details, but there is on thing I find a little unique about this guy. And that is as follows: Most terrorits when caught, brag about how they done something, some almost seem get off on bragging about how much pain they have caused and how they have fought "evil". Granted they may not shed info on the organization they work for or are involved in, but usually they are not afraid to admit what they have done.

The man who has been convicted has maintained his innocence since the day was accused, and even after his conviction and even as he laid in jail. Also, to follow up on what dave said, I have also seen some clips from the news (ABC mostly) of parents of the killed men and women even saying how they beleive this man is innocent and the real killer remains free.


Now at the same time, I dont beleive this guy should be just let out. He was convicted in a court, and given a trial....but as dave mentioned there was something about an appeal that I think may warrant further investigation.

Nevertheless, my sympathy and prayers remain with the familys and the ones who are dead.

Megrahi was a member of Libyan intelligence. Libyan intelligence was also responsible for other terrorist operations, such as the Berlin Disco bombing. They never claimed responsibility for that either, although we intercepted communications of them congratulating their operatives on a job well done. The modus operandi of Libyan intelligence was to always deny involvement. Megrahi's denial of responsibility is perfectly concordant with his training as an intelligence officer. Years later, Libya tacitly admitted responsibility (although official denying it with legalese) when they paid out billions of dollars of compensation. I am sure Megrahi didn't act alone but he was convicted in a court of law. His colleague who was also on trial walked free.

Bonnie
08-21-2009, 07:21 AM
Megrahi was a member of Libyan intelligence. Libyan intelligence was also responsible for other terrorist operations, such as the Berlin Disco bombing. They never claimed responsibility for that either, although we intercepted communications of them congratulating their operatives on a job well done. The modus operandi of Libyan intelligence was to always deny involvement. Megrahi's denial of responsibility is perfectly concordant with his training as an intelligence officer. Years later, Libya tacitly admittedly responsibility (although official denying it with legalese) when they paid out billions of dollars of compensation. I am sure Megrahi didn't act alone but he was convicted in a court of law. His colleague who was also on trial walked free.

This is what they were saying on CNN. I believe he was rightly convicted. If he wasn't the right guy, then his brothers-in-arms let him take the fall for them. Either way, he should not have been let out. But if our government, with Scotland's help, and the Libyan government are doing things behind closed doors for some hidden agenda that they don't want the public to know about this would explain them letting him go other than the whole "compassionate" thing.

I also heard on CNN that maybe he's not even dying. I guess time will tell, that is, if they report his death. Even then, how will we know he really died.

Tyburn
08-21-2009, 12:08 PM
Megrahi was a member of Libyan intelligence. Libyan intelligence was also responsible for other terrorist operations, such as the Berlin Disco bombing. They never claimed responsibility for that either, although we intercepted communications of them congratulating their operatives on a job well done. The modus operandi of Libyan intelligence was to always deny involvement. Megrahi's denial of responsibility is perfectly concordant with his training as an intelligence officer. Years later, Libya tacitly admittedly responsibility (although official denying it with legalese) when they paid out billions of dollars of compensation. I am sure Megrahi didn't act alone but he was convicted in a court of law. His colleague who was also on trial walked free.
Being a member of Lybian Intelligence doesnt automatically mean guilt.

...and again, What have the Americans done to bring Justice to their Citizens in the past twenty years? Almost Nothing. I find it very rude that Barack Obama should dare to say anything at all. If he has a problem, why doesnt HE go and tackle this terrorist? Why doesnt HE go and bring the Libyan Authorities to Justice?

Noone is daring to entertain the high probability that we locked up an innocent man, and that the perpertrators have gotten away. Doesnt THAT make any of you angry??

You should spend less time criticising our Government, and more time lobbying for your own to actually do something about this. But they wont. They will just complain...which will just make that public opinion rift larger.

I'm not saying they should have released him. But I am saying that rather then do nothing but complain with your righteous anger, perhaps you should really look into this properly. I am suprised with a mind like yours you havent entertained such ideas and commented on them, to be honnest.

Tyburn
08-21-2009, 12:12 PM
This is what they were saying on CNN. I believe he was rightly convicted. If he wasn't the right guy, then his brothers-in-arms let him take the fall for them. Either way, he should not have been let out. But if our government, with Scotland's help, and the Libyan government are doing things behind closed doors for some hidden agenda that they don't want the public to know about this would explain them letting him go other than the whole "compassionate" thing.

I also heard on CNN that maybe he's not even dying. I guess time will tell, that is, if they report his death. Even then, how will we know he really died.
I dont think so.

If this were secret deals, then the people to have released the bomber would have been Westminster. Westminster have dissagreed with Scotland over this, it appears to have originated from a PROVINCIAL Government. Thats whats confusing. Officially, neither the English, Nor the Americans have aggreed to his release. This was done by the Scottish Parliament who I believe are reassembling during recess to talk about it. The timing is iinteresting also. Fancy doing it whilst BOTH Westminster AND Scotland are having recess?

Does your Government do Recess? Where they all break for the summer holidays...or is it a purely British thing. I've never understood why they need about three months off during the summer...what are they...school children :laugh:

Play The Man
08-21-2009, 05:39 PM
Being a member of Lybian Intelligence doesnt automatically mean guilt.

...and again, What have the Americans done to bring Justice to their Citizens in the past twenty years? Almost Nothing. I find it very rude that Barack Obama should dare to say anything at all. If he has a problem, why doesnt HE go and tackle this terrorist? Why doesnt HE go and bring the Libyan Authorities to Justice?

Noone is daring to entertain the high probability that we locked up an innocent man, and that the perpertrators have gotten away. Doesnt THAT make any of you angry??

You should spend less time criticising our Government, and more time lobbying for your own to actually do something about this. But they wont. They will just complain...which will just make that public opinion rift larger.

I'm not saying they should have released him. But I am saying that rather then do nothing but complain with your righteous anger, perhaps you should really look into this properly. I am suprised with a mind like yours you havent entertained such ideas and commented on them, to be honnest.

Tyburn, go back and review the history of this incident. U.S. Intelligence identified this guy in the early 90's but Libya wouldn't give him up. They stalled for almost 10 years. America couldn't be the agent of his prosecution. The whole mess involving the European court with the Scottish judges was one of the conditions Libya demanded before they released their agent. I am sure there was a whole team of assassins acting under orders of Qadaffi. Unfortunately, this is the only one we caught. As for America bringing Libya to justice, America tried in the '80's when we bombed Libya (Qadaffi was tipped off by European countries) for committing terrorist attacks, including the Berlin Disco bombing. The Lockerbie bombing was "payback" by Libya for America's bombing of Libya. Even the Democrats are ticked off about this. Obama, Kerry and H. Clinton are all on record opposing this man's release. Groups representing the American victim's are also on record opposing his release.

Play The Man
08-21-2009, 05:44 PM
I dont think so.

If this were secret deals, then the people to have released the bomber would have been Westminster. Westminster have dissagreed with Scotland over this, it appears to have originated from a PROVINCIAL Government. Thats whats confusing. Officially, neither the English, Nor the Americans have aggreed to his release. This was done by the Scottish Parliament who I believe are reassembling during recess to talk about it. The timing is iinteresting also. Fancy doing it whilst BOTH Westminster AND Scotland are having recess?

Does your Government do Recess? Where they all break for the summer holidays...or is it a purely British thing. I've never understood why they need about three months off during the summer...what are they...school children :laugh:

Congress does have breaks. Supposedly, it is for members of Congress to go back home and meet with constituents to discuss the interests of the people. Currently, there is a controversy because some Congressman and Senators are bailing out of town-hall meetings because constituents are so angry about Obama's health care proposal that they have been jeering the politicians.

Tyburn
08-21-2009, 06:18 PM
Congress does have breaks. Supposedly, it is for members of Congress to go back home and meet with constituents to discuss the interests of the people. Currently, there is a controversy because some Congressman and Senators are bailing out of town-hall meetings because constituents are so angry about Obama's health care proposal that they have been jeering the politicians.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Tyburn
08-21-2009, 06:32 PM
Tyburn, go back and review the history of this incident. U.S. Intelligence identified this guy in the early 90's but Libya wouldn't give him up. They stalled for almost 10 years. America couldn't be the agent of his prosecution. The whole mess involving the European court with the Scottish judges was one of the conditions Libya demanded before they released their agent. I am sure there was a whole team of assassins acting under orders of Qadaffi. Unfortunately, this is the only one we caught. As for America bringing Libya to justice, America tried in the '80's when we bombed Libya (Qadaffi was tipped off by European countries) for committing terrorist attacks, including the Berlin Disco bombing. The Lockerbie bombing was "payback" by Libya for America's bombing of Libya. Even the Democrats are ticked off about this. Obama, Kerry and H. Clinton are all on record opposing this man's release. Groups representing the American victim's are also on record opposing his release.
So why didnt America stop the release :huh:

come to think of it...why didnt Westminster :unsure:

Can I ask you...do you think something went wrong during the actual attack?? I ask this because if the plane left London, heading for America...what was it doing flying NORTH to Scotland before Crossing the Atlantic. When I left the Midlands to fly to Philadelphia we didnt need to go to scotland and then turn left :mellow:

Secondly...if it was an American attack, why didnt the bomb go off over an American city? Do you think the plan had been to basically bomb the American Airport? Only, it seems a little odd to me, that the plane seemed to be taking a geographically unsound route to the U.S and the bomb went off over scotland and not, say whilst coming into landing in one of the largest Airports on the planet, where the damage and death toll could have been very much bigger.

Complete suposition, but suposing the Bomb going off over lockerbie was damage limitation, and actually avoided a greater American Death Toll? The European Court would be an easy gesture. Scotland cant do it because its Provinical, America and England are, from the point of view of the perpetrating Nations, bias. Yet noone plans an attack with the deliberate thought that someone get caught, unless he was sold out.

Supposing, its as you say, State Sponcered. Supposing the plan given to the convict is, distory the plane over the American Airport. But all the time, the State plans on distoring the plane over a neutral country that cant actually host a court of its own, between two enemies?

When it goes wrong and a suspect is found out, the best possiblity is in Europe, at least its neutral. The Terrorist claims innocence, not for planning the attack, but for the fact someone else, deliberatley pre-triggered the explosion. The evidence looks like the Bomber did it deliberatly, and perhaps he would have done had the plane made it into U.S airspace, but it didnt, so as far as he is concerned, he is innocent of an actual offence, because he was never given the opportunity by his own side, to carry out his plan, they simply used him to get the bomb onto the plane...and incase they actually needed someone for the fall.


So there are three theories just on the cuff. One Theory, He did the bombing and all went fine, Second Theory, He was innocent, but discovered what his countrymen were up to and detonated the bomb to prevent a much larger loss of life, Third Theory, He was used by his own side and made the scape goat, maybe he was forced to pull the trigger ahead of time, or maybe it was pulled for him. Or perhaps he is totally innocent, and being deliberatly framed, innocently buys clothes that are then stolen and put in the bag to place him as the bomber.

Who knows. I didnt know the U.S had bombed Libya, nor that this was a revenge attack. Sorry I jumped the gun...if you pardon the pun :ashamed:

Play The Man
08-21-2009, 09:42 PM
So why didnt America stop the release :huh:

come to think of it...why didnt Westminster :unsure:

Can I ask you...do you think something went wrong during the actual attack?? I ask this because if the plane left London, heading for America...what was it doing flying NORTH to Scotland before Crossing the Atlantic. When I left the Midlands to fly to Philadelphia we didnt need to go to scotland and then turn left :mellow:

Secondly...if it was an American attack, why didnt the bomb go off over an American city? Do you think the plan had been to basically bomb the American Airport? Only, it seems a little odd to me, that the plane seemed to be taking a geographically unsound route to the U.S and the bomb went off over scotland and not, say whilst coming into landing in one of the largest Airports on the planet, where the damage and death toll could have been very much bigger.

Complete suposition, but suposing the Bomb going off over lockerbie was damage limitation, and actually avoided a greater American Death Toll? The European Court would be an easy gesture. Scotland cant do it because its Provinical, America and England are, from the point of view of the perpetrating Nations, bias. Yet noone plans an attack with the deliberate thought that someone get caught, unless he was sold out.

Supposing, its as you say, State Sponcered. Supposing the plan given to the convict is, distory the plane over the American Airport. But all the time, the State plans on distoring the plane over a neutral country that cant actually host a court of its own, between two enemies?

When it goes wrong and a suspect is found out, the best possiblity is in Europe, at least its neutral. The Terrorist claims innocence, not for planning the attack, but for the fact someone else, deliberatley pre-triggered the explosion. The evidence looks like the Bomber did it deliberatly, and perhaps he would have done had the plane made it into U.S airspace, but it didnt, so as far as he is concerned, he is innocent of an actual offence, because he was never given the opportunity by his own side, to carry out his plan, they simply used him to get the bomb onto the plane...and incase they actually needed someone for the fall.


So there are three theories just on the cuff. One Theory, He did the bombing and all went fine, Second Theory, He was innocent, but discovered what his countrymen were up to and detonated the bomb to prevent a much larger loss of life, Third Theory, He was used by his own side and made the scape goat, maybe he was forced to pull the trigger ahead of time, or maybe it was pulled for him. Or perhaps he is totally innocent, and being deliberatly framed, innocently buys clothes that are then stolen and put in the bag to place him as the bomber.

Who knows. I didnt know the U.S had bombed Libya, nor that this was a revenge attack. Sorry I jumped the gun...if you pardon the pun :ashamed:

American politicians made calls and sent letters, but apparently they were ignored. Obama reportedly was assured that there would not be a "hero's welcome" for the man, but that assurance was not true.

I don't know the answers to your questions. If I recall correctly, the bomb had an altimeter which was tripped and started a timer, during the airplane's flight leg from Frankfort to London. The plane was an hour late leaving the runway. Apparently, the bombers meant for it to explode over the Atlantic Ocean where it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do a complete forensic examination of the accident. Because it crashed over land, they were able to do an accident investigation and find bomb circuitry. Of course there are conspiracy theories but I don't want to discuss those - it is a fool's errand.

Tyburn
08-21-2009, 10:10 PM
American politicians made calls and sent letters, but apparently they were ignored. Obama reportedly was assured that there would not be a "hero's welcome" for the man, but that assurance was not true.

I don't know the answers to your questions. If I recall correctly, the bomb had an altimeter which was tripped and started a timer, during the airplane's flight leg from Frankfort to London. The plane was an hour late leaving the runway. Apparently, the bombers meant for it to explode over the Atlantic Ocean where it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to do a complete forensic examination of the accident. Because it crashed over land, they were able to do an accident investigation and find bomb circuitry. Of course there are conspiracy theories but I don't want to discuss those - it is a fool's errand.
okay, sorry, I was only asking :unsure-1:

Bonnie
08-21-2009, 10:29 PM
I dont think so.

If this were secret deals, then the people to have released the bomber would have been Westminster. Westminster have dissagreed with Scotland over this, it appears to have originated from a PROVINCIAL Government. Thats whats confusing. Officially, neither the English, Nor the Americans have aggreed to his release. This was done by the Scottish Parliament who I believe are reassembling during recess to talk about it. The timing is iinteresting also. Fancy doing it whilst BOTH Westminster AND Scotland are having recess?

Does your Government do Recess? Where they all break for the summer holidays...or is it a purely British thing. I've never understood why they need about three months off during the summer...what are they...school children :laugh:

Governments do "deals" that their citizens no nothing about all the time. And, they will publicly come out saying they are against something all the while being knee deep in it. Maybe Scotland really let him go for compassionate reasons. I'm just saying I would not be surprised or shocked if it came out that "all was not what it seemed to be". :wink:

Tyburn
08-21-2009, 10:35 PM
Governments do "deals" that their citizens no nothing about all the time. And, they will publicly come out saying they are against something all the while being knee deep in it. Maybe Scotland really let him go for compassionate reasons. I'm just saying I would not be surprised or shocked if it came out that "all was not what it seemed to be". :wink:
I dont think Scotland should have let him go without Westminsters Approval. Thats my issue. Since when does the Scot Government make Executive Decisions, when it is a Provincial Government under Westminster?

Now the plot is thickening, because the Guy who sanctioned this release did it, when both Governments were in Recess AND The British Prime Minister is on annual leave.

I am struggling to understand who actually authorized his release...and whether it is actually an illegal act. :blink:

Bonnie
08-21-2009, 10:51 PM
I dont think Scotland should have let him go without Westminsters Approval. Thats my issue. Since when does the Scot Government make Executive Decisions, when it is a Provincial Government under Westminster?

Now the plot is thickening, because the Guy who sanctioned this release did it, when both Governments were in Recess AND The British Prime Minister is on annual leave.

I am struggling to understand who actually authorized his release...and whether it is actually an illegal act. :blink:

Just from what you are saying here just makes me more suspicious about everything behind this guy's release.

They just said on the national news that Qadaffi (his name was spelled so many different ways on Google I don't know what's correct :wacko: ) will be coming to the U.S. next month for the very first time to speak before the United Nations. Is this coincidence...

KENTUCKYREDBONE
08-22-2009, 06:30 AM
I find it interesting that this guy who they seem to believe killed several innocent people was released but Savage a radio guy is banned.

Play The Man
08-22-2009, 06:50 AM
I find it interesting that this guy who they seem to believe killed several innocent people was released but Savage a radio guy is banned.

Yes, isn't that ironic; however, I would correct your statement by changing it to "several hundred" innocent people.

Play The Man
08-22-2009, 07:07 AM
Gordon Brown was under fresh pressure last night after shocking claims by Libya that the release of the Lockerbie bomber was linked explicity to trade deals benefiting Britain.

Colonel Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam said the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was discussed at every meeting between the then Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Libyan leader.

But the Foreign Office strongly denied any link between the boosting of UK business interests and the freeing of the man convicted of Britain's worst terrorist atrocity.

A spokesman insisted: 'No deal has been made between the UK Government and Libya in relation to Megrahi and any commercial interests.'

Foreign Secretary David Miliband also rejected suggestions that the Government wanted 57-year-old Megrahi released so commercial relations with oil-rich Libya could be improved.

'I really reject that entirely,' he said. 'That is a slur both on myself and the Government.'

The trade claim will intensify demands for Mr Brown to come clean about exactly what contacts Britain had with the former pariah state before Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds - he has terminal prostate cancer.

Speaking on Libyan television, Colonel Gaddafi's son said Mr Blair raised the Megrahi case repeatedly to smooth the way for British firms to tap into Libya's energy reserves.

He told the Al Mutawassit channel: 'In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table.'

Mr Gaddafi, who discussed the case with Business Secretary Lord Mandelson when they met in Corfu just weeks ago, hailed Megrahi's the release as a 'victory' for all Libyans.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208001/Heros-welcome-Lockerbie-bomber-Megrahi-slaughtered-270.html#ixzz0OtRDywTS
:angry:

Bonnie
08-22-2009, 07:43 AM
:angry:


Gordon Brown was under fresh pressure last night after shocking claims by Libya that the release of the Lockerbie bomber was linked explicity to trade deals benefiting Britain.

Colonel Gaddafi's son Saif al-Islam said the case of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi was discussed at every meeting between the then Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Libyan leader.

But the Foreign Office strongly denied any link between the boosting of UK business interests and the freeing of the man convicted of Britain's worst terrorist atrocity.

A spokesman insisted: 'No deal has been made between the UK Government and Libya in relation to Megrahi and any commercial interests.'

Foreign Secretary David Miliband also rejected suggestions that the Government wanted 57-year-old Megrahi released so commercial relations with oil-rich Libya could be improved.

'I really reject that entirely,' he said. 'That is a slur both on myself and the Government.'

The trade claim will intensify demands for Mr Brown to come clean about exactly what contacts Britain had with the former pariah state before Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds - he has terminal prostate cancer.

Speaking on Libyan television, Colonel Gaddafi's son said Mr Blair raised the Megrahi case repeatedly to smooth the way for British firms to tap into Libya's energy reserves.

He told the Al Mutawassit channel: 'In all commercial contracts, for oil and gas with Britain, (Megrahi) was always on the negotiating table.'

Mr Gaddafi, who discussed the case with Business Secretary Lord Mandelson when they met in Corfu just weeks ago, hailed Megrahi's the release as a 'victory' for all Libyans.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz0OtRDywTS

Oh Davvvveeee....:Whistle:

Let's see, hmmm, "deals and denials", now where have I heard that before.....oh, yeah, I posted something to that effect. :laugh:

Thanks for that article, "Play"! :)

Play The Man
08-23-2009, 07:12 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/22/fbi-director-slams-scotland-lockerbie-bomber-release/

WASHINGTON --FBI Director Robert Mueller thundered down on Scotland's justice minister for releasing the Lockerbie bomber, an act that "gives comfort to terrorists" all over the world.

Mueller sent a scathing letter to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, who cited compassionate grounds in his decision to let Abdel Baset al-Megrahi return to Libya because he has prostate cancer and was given only months to live by British doctors.

The angry tone of the letter is out of character with the normally reserved Mueller, indicating his outrage is personal as well as professional. He also sent copies to the families of the Lockerbie victims.

"I have made it a practice not to comment on the actions of other prosecutors," Mueller wrote. "Your decision to release Megrahi causes me to abandon that practice in this case. I do so because I am familiar with the facts, and the law. ... And I do so because I am outraged at your decision, blithely defended on the grounds of 'compassion."'

Before he became FBI director, Mueller spent years as a Justice Department lawyer leading the investigation into the 1988 airplane bombing that killed 270 people, most of them Americans.

Mueller said Thursday's release was "as inexplicable as it is detrimental to the cause of justice. Indeed your action makes a mockery of the rule of law."

His letter was dated Friday, and was made public Saturday.

Releasing the convicted bomber "gives comfort to terrorists around the world who now believe that regardless of the quality of the investigation ... the terrorist will be freed by one man's exercise of 'compassion."

Mueller recounted his own emotional experiences leading the investigation -- seeing a teenage victim's single sneaker, a Syracuse University sweatshirt, toys in the suitcase of a businessman heading home to see his wife and children for Christmas.

"Your action," he wrote MacAskill, "makes a mockery of the grief of the families who lost their own on December 21, 1988. You could not have spent much time with the families, certainly not as much time as others involved in the investigation and prosecution."

He ended the Lockerbie letter with a frustrated question: "Where, I ask, is the justice?"

Bonnie
08-23-2009, 07:52 AM
That is the ?

We know where the "compassion" went, but where is the justice? :wink:

Play The Man
08-23-2009, 05:08 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541741,00.html

LONDON — British Prime Minister Gordon Brown reportedly discussed details on conditions for the release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi with Libyan leader Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi nearly six weeks ago.

A letter sent from Brown's office to Qaddafi on the day al-Megrahi was released asked that the return of the Libyan convicted of killing 270 people in the 1988 Pan Am bombing be kept low key out of concern for his victims and their families, the Guardian reported.

The letter also refers to a conversation between the two leaders at the G8 summit in Italy six weeks ago where Brown writes that he "stressed that, should the Scottish executive decide that Megrahi can return to Libya, this should be a purely private family occasion," the Guardian reported.

The letter, addressed "Dear Muammar," contradicts previous claims that the Lockerbie case was only briefly mentioned during that conversation in July and that Brown stressed it should be left to the Scottish government, the Guardian reported.

A second letter written by the British Foreign Office minister to Libya also confirmed to Scottish Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill that there were no legal reasons to prevent Megrahi's release and expressed hope that MacAskil "consider the Libyan application," the paper reported.

Qaddafi raised eyebrows when he welcomed Megrahi back to Libya Thursday amid a cheering crowd and thanked not only "friends in Scotland, the Scottish National Party, and Scottish prime minister, and the foreign secretary," but also "friend Brown, the Prime Minister of Britain, his Government, the Queen of Britain, Elizabeth, and Prince Andrew, who all contributed to encouraging the Scottish government to take this historic and courageous decision, despite the obstacles."

British Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague has renewed calls for all official records of conversations about the release to be made public, the Guardian reported.

Tyburn
08-24-2009, 12:31 AM
Let me explain something.

The Scot Parliament is actually a Devolved Provisional Government, that means that there are a few systems of law compeletely and utterly Scot based and NOT under Westminster. This includes their Educational System, their Health System, and their Legal/Judicial System.

In Scot Law there is a WRITTEN LAW saying that this particular man CAN grant Compassionate Stay of Sentance. In English Law this can ONLY happen if a senior member of the Government actually overrules its own Judiciary, in America, it simply cant happen at all.

However...this is the interesting bit. Scotland is being run by the SNP. I had NO idea they had taken power. This is the Scotish Nationalist Party. They have both Labour and Conservative Parties, but those are presently opposition.

Try to understand Scot Nationals DO NOT want to be part of The Union, and DO NOT want to adhere to Westminster. They want a Free Scotland. GOD help us if they are as Fascist as the British National Party, which now has several seats in Europe, but thankfully, no seats in Westminster yet, although plenty of seats on local councils. They are the product of The National Front...which...to be quite honnest, was Neo-Nazi before its collapse in the early 1980s.

Now I dont know just how Nationalistic Scotland is...but I DO know that the reason they have broken recess and reconvened is because the other parties in the Scot Parliament, are as unhappy about this as the Americans and the English.




My Father said tonight "So Dave, How long do you think before the U.S invades Scotland" :unsure:

Tyburn
08-24-2009, 12:37 AM
Oh Davvvveeee....:Whistle:

Let's see, hmmm, "deals and denials", now where have I heard that before.....oh, yeah, I posted something to that effect. :laugh:

Thanks for that article, "Play"! :)
Enticing though that might be, that would put the English Labour Government working WITH the Scot Nationals.

Sounds to me like the Scots might have done it, simply because by Law noone can stop them.

A slap in the face of Westminster and the Union from some Nationalist. Dont think they even took America into consideration. This might really be an internal domestic disbute for the United Kingdom...which you incidently got caught in the cross-fire.

Bonnie
08-24-2009, 03:22 AM
Let me explain something.

The Scot Parliament is actually a Devolved Provisional Government, that means that there are a few systems of law compeletely and utterly Scot based and NOT under Westminster. This includes their Educational System, their Health System, and their Legal/Judicial System.

In Scot Law there is a WRITTEN LAW saying that this particular man CAN grant Compassionate Stay of Sentance. In English Law this can ONLY happen if a senior member of the Government actually overrules its own Judiciary, in America, it simply cant happen at all.

However...this is the interesting bit. Scotland is being run by the SNP. I had NO idea they had taken power. This is the Scotish Nationalist Party. They have both Labour and Conservative Parties, but those are presently opposition.

Try to understand Scot Nationals DO NOT want to be part of The Union, and DO NOT want to adhere to Westminster. They want a Free Scotland. GOD help us if they are as Fascist as the British National Party, which now has several seats in Europe, but thankfully, no seats in Westminster yet, although plenty of seats on local councils. They are the product of The National Front...which...to be quite honnest, was Neo-Nazi before its collapse in the early 1980s.

Now I dont know just how Nationalistic Scotland is...but I DO know that the reason they have broken recess and reconvened is because the other parties in the Scot Parliament, are as unhappy about this as the Americans and the English.




My Father said tonight "So Dave, How long do you think before the U.S invades Scotland" :unsure:

It seems risky to leave such a decision up to "one" man. :unsure:

Bonnie
08-24-2009, 03:28 AM
Enticing though that might be, that would put the English Labour Government working WITH the Scot Nationals.

Sounds to me like the Scots might have done it, simply because by Law noone can stop them.

A slap in the face of Westminster and the Union from some Nationalist. Dont think they even took America into consideration. This might really be an internal domestic disbute for the United Kingdom...which you incidently got caught in the cross-fire.

You said yourself, it seemed odd that the decision was made while everyone was on break/holiday. So either the Brits were working with the Scots and everyone was "conveniently" on break which would give them plausible deniability for having anything to do with this decision; or, the Scots took advantage of them being on break to let him go.

I think time will tell, Dave, "who" benefits from the release of this man. :wink:

Play The Man
08-25-2009, 01:57 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,542020,00.html

Scottish Lawmakers Reamed at Emergency Meeting on Lockerbie Release


Scottish lawmakers tore into their goverment Monday at an emergency session on the early release of Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, as the ruling party escaped a no-confidence vote that could have brought the reeling government down.

Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill received a ceaseless barrage of furious questions over his decision to free al-Megrahi, the only man ever convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 that killed 270 people.

Al-Megrahi was released last week on compassionate grounds because he is dying of prostate cancer and received a hero's welcome Thursday in his native Libya, where he was embraced by jubilant crowds and the country's leader, Muammar al-Qaddafi.

Critics have called on MacAskill to resign and sought to unseat Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond, who many in Scotland fear have damaged relations with the United States.

Top U.S. officials have continued to express their disappointment and disgust with the decision to send al-Megrahi packing, as the families of those aboard the doomed Pan Am flight expressed outrage at the show of compassion for a man who never repented for his crime.

A crowd hissed along from the packed public section during the emergency debate Monday in Edinburgh, as MacAskill was once again called on to defend freeing the convicted bomber after only eight years of his life sentence. Al-Megrahi served just 11 days in prison for each of the 270 victims of the bombing.

Some Scottish lawmakers hoped to distance themselves from the decision by Scotland's nationalist administration, which advocates full independence from Britain.

"Today is about showing the world that Kenny MacAskill did not speak for Scotland in making this decision," said Richard Baker, the Labour Party's Scottish justice spokesman. An expected no-confidence vote was tabled before the debate Monday.

MacAskill reiterated his view that the government had to uphold "Scottish values" even in the face of al-Megrahi's terror, but lawmakers roiled at the suggestion that there were no other defensible options open to him.

"I do not believe you hold a monopoly on values," said member of the Scottish Parliament Karen Gillon.

"The suggestion that those who disagree with (the decision to free Megrahi) lack compassion is deeply offensive," said member of the Scottish Parliament Margaret Curran.

Parliamentarians present pressed MacAskill for details of his discussions and briefings before al-Megrahi's release, which he generally deflected, and asked whether the 57-year-old could have been transferred to a hospice in Scotland instead.

The justice secretary said he could not have remanded the ailing terrorist to the care of Scottish doctors, which would unwillingly put them at risk and in the spotlight. "I was not willing to foist Mr. Megrahi upon any hospice in Scotland," he said.

Though he acknowledged that the release was "a global issue," but stressed the decision to free al-Megrahi had been his alone. He regretted that assurances of a low-key arrival in Libya had been breached by Libyan authorities. The sight of cheerings crowds on the ground have further set off critics.

Play The Man
08-30-2009, 01:49 AM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6814939.ece

Lockerbie bomber 'set free for oil'
The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.

Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: “This is the strongest evidence yet that the British government has been involved for a long time in talks over al-Megrahi in which commercial considerations have been central to their thinking.”

Two letters dated five months apart show that Straw initially intended to exclude Megrahi from a prisoner transfer agreement with Colonel Muammar Gadaffi, under which British and Libyan prisoners could serve out their sentences in their home country.

In a letter dated July 26, 2007, Straw said he favoured an option to leave out Megrahi by stipulating that any prisoners convicted before a specified date would not be considered for transfer.

Downing Street had also said Megrahi would not be included under the agreement.

Straw then switched his position as Libya used its deal with BP as a bargaining chip to insist the Lockerbie bomber was included.

The exploration deal for oil and gas, potentially worth up to £15 billion, was announced in May 2007. Six months later the agreement was still waiting to be ratified.

On December 19, 2007, Straw wrote to MacAskill announcing that the UK government was abandoning its attempt to exclude Megrahi from the prisoner transfer agreement, citing the national interest.

In a letter leaked by a Whitehall source, he wrote: “I had previously accepted the importance of the al-Megrahi issue to Scotland and said I would try to get an exclusion for him on the face of the agreement. I have not been able to secure an explicit exclusion.

“The wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage and, in view of the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom, I have agreed that in this instance the [prisoner transfer agreement] should be in the standard form and not mention any individual.”

Within six weeks of the government climbdown, Libya had ratified the BP deal. The prisoner transfer agreement was finalised in May this year, leading to Libya formally applying for Megrahi to be transferred to its custody.

Saif Gadaffi, the colonel’s son, has insisted that negotiation over the release of Megrahi was linked with the BP oil deal: “The fight to get the [transfer] agreement lasted a long time and was very political, but I want to make clear that we didn’t mention Mr Megrahi.

“At all times we talked about the [prisoner transfer agreement]. It was obvious we were talking about him. We all knew that was what we were talking about.

“People should not get angry because we were talking about commerce or oil. We signed an oil deal at the same time. The commerce and oil deals were all with the [prisoner transfer agreement].”

His account is confirmed by other sources. Sir Richard Dalton, a former British ambassador to Libya and a board member of the Libyan British Business Council, said: “Nobody doubted Libya wanted BP and BP was confident its commitment would go through. But the timing of the final authority to spend real money was dependent on politics.”

Tyburn
08-30-2009, 02:30 AM
:unsure: ooops. Well that explains why Gordon Brown keeps saying No comment.

Course with Scot law, they can nicely blame the Scot Executive for the faux pas.

Bet Washington is blowing steam